“and we leave his “belief” to him and the counselors to sort out the typical guilt and grief that comes from being part of such a traumatic event,”
AGAIN you profess to know things that you CANNOT, and base your assumptions on them -
BTW -
“We know — as a “result” — that since Waleed is dead, he exhibited signs of life, which resulted in the killer firing another shot into him, killing him. We also know — as a “result” — that since the uninjured student is alive, that the killer did not perceive that student to be alive, but dead.
“
NO we do not know those as results, we know it because of our belief that what “A” says regarding the events is accurate and truthfull.
From results all we know is that “A” is alive and Waleed is dead. From forensics we may be able to know the time between the shots that killed Waleed, the angles and perhaps the distance of the shooter.
You said — “AGAIN you profess to know things that you CANNOT, and base your assumptions on them”
I did present the facts as they are given to us. BUT, and this is the “big but” here — you’ll notice that the MSM is presenting a total “belief” — absent any facts — to jam down an unverifiable story. To the uncritical reader they might think this is true and factual. But, the crticial reader will see that this “story” (of having a life saved because of this Waleed) is *totally unverifiable*.
However, we’re asked to “believe” something which is totally unverifiable — which doesn’t enter into the “factual realm” at all.
.
You then said — “NO we do not know those as results, we know it because of our belief that what “A” says regarding the events is accurate and truthfull.”
The statement you’re referring to is in this section —
We can recount the facts that are presented to us and see what we come up with. We are told several things which are given as facts and then we are told the student’s “belief”.
The fact is that Waleed was intitally shot and wounded, on the first go-round. We know that the uninjured student and Waleed were laying next to each other. We know that the uninjured student was playing dead. We know that Waleed made a “movement” (student then says he has a “belief” about this movement). We know that the killer returned to the room two more times looking for signs of life.
We know — as a “result” — that since Waleed is dead, he exhibited signs of life, which resulted in the killer firing another shot into him, killing him. We also know — as a “result” — that since the uninjured student is alive, that the killer did not perceive that student to be alive, but dead.
So, when we examine those elementary facts and put it together with the “belief” of the student, we come up with these several things.
The killer upon returning to the room, looking for signs of life, sees Waleed move. He kills Waleed. The killer does not see any signs of life in the uninjured student (who is playing dead). The killer does not shoot the uninjured student. The killer leaves at some point.
The result is Waleed is dead because he moved. The uninjured student is alive because he was playing dead and the killer saw no signs of life in him.
Simple story — and we leave his “belief” to him and the counselors to sort out the typical guilt and grief that comes from being part of such a traumatic event, having someone right next to you shot dead, while that uninjured students stays alive, by playing dead. As we listen to what counselors say about these types of things, we see that people commonly seek to find “meaning” to senseless death, and this student’s “belief” is apparently his attempt.
So, yes, we do know “as a result” — that Waleed is dead. That’s a “result” — in other words, an accomplished fact — “he’s dead”, reported separately on the news.
And we accept “as a result” — that the uninjured student is alive. HOWEVER, here is where it is uncertain, outside of this story. This student may not exist at all. This is what we don’t really know.
Now for sake of merely — discussing — this story and seeing if the facts hold together with the “stated beliefs” — we can use the “assumption” that this student exists. And by using this assumption, it allows us to continue the “discussion” of this story.
HOWEVER — this particular *assumption* is — also *totally unverifiable* at this point in time.
For all we know, this is a literary fiction, concocted by a professor to give an MSM slant to the news of “a Jew saves a life, so now a Muslim saves a life.”
And since we don’t even have any outside and verifiable evidence that such a student exists, this could very well be an elaborate hoax.
BUT, even if it were not an elaborate hoax, the facts belie the very “belief” that is stated in the story.
So, let me say that again — this story is actually *totally unverifiable* because we have no proof that such an uninjured student even exists. He’s anonymous; he could have been invented; we have no way of even finding out. At this point in time, the story cannot hold any water, because of it’s potential of being a total hoax.
But, if we assume certain things for sake of discussion, we *also* find that the “belief” of the “supposed student” — is not verifiable on the factual basis.
The proper order of things to even accept such a story as true, even before we analyze the facts — is to establish that such a student exists and that such a thing actually happened.
Until we know that he exists and until we know that such a thing happened — this is simply like Aesop’s Fables, and we are simply exploring “literary fiction”....
Regards,
Star Traveler